https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81835
--- Comment #3 from Chris Johns ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Chris Johns from comment #0)
> > Tiny issue.
> >
> > Looking over cxxabi.h I noticed a link in a comment about __cxa_demangle is
> > not valid anymo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81835
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That should point back to the cxxabi.h file, where you started.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81877
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So I think what safelen > 1 (and thus ivdep) guarantees is that (even if the
loop doesn't iterate) we can peel any iteration before or after the loop which
effectively means all references in one iteration
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81884
Bug ID: 81884
Summary: Invalid code generation with zero size arrays or
flexible array members
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81885
Bug ID: 81885
Summary: operator-> not checked by -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66639
--- Comment #11 from Benjamin Buch ---
Also test case #3 doesn't work if you declare the function return type auto:
constexpr auto foo ()
{
static_assert (0 == __builtin_strcmp (__func__, "foo"), "#1");
static_assert (0 == __builtin_strcmp (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81886
Bug ID: 81886
Summary: Means to determine at runtime foffload targets
specified at compile time
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81884
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 42000
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42000&action=edit
patch in testing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81886
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries ---
This is the initial commit to gomp-4_0-branch :
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-08/msg01264.html .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
--- Comment #24 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: hjl
Date: Fri Aug 18 09:38:38 2017
New Revision: 251180
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251180&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Add warn_if_not_aligned attribute
Add warn_if_not_aligned attribu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53037
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81886
--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries ---
Created attachment 42001
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42001&action=edit
trunk patch
This is a version of the patch for trunk.
It introduces some failures for c and c++, but that might
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81886
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
These are all related to timing issues. Maybe not related to the patch.
> FAIL: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-74.c -foffload=nvptx-none -O0
> execution test
> FAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81847
--- Comment #4 from Valentine ---
Created attachment 42002
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42002&action=edit
code to reproduce ICE
I reduced (thanks to suggestions above and CReduce) this to the attached
example.
g++ -w -fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81877
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Now - for refs that have an invariant address in such loop the interleaving
> effectively means that they are independent even in the same iteration.
Not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81886
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
> FAIL: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/parallel-dims.c -foffload=nvptx-none -O0
> (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/parallel-dims.c -foffload=nv
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81268
--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> Redoing https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01469.html
I guess due to some server crash / glitch?
> New Revision: 251085
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81754
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||build
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81847
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81268
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #4)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> > Redoing https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01469.html
>
> I guess due to some server crash / glitch?
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81805
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81805
Tom de Vries changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45033
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCON
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81533
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81887
Bug ID: 81887
Summary: pragma omp ordered simd ignored under -fopenmp-simd
Product: gcc
Version: 7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: openmp, wrong-code
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50445
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81885
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45033
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Clang only rejects it in C++98 or C++11 mode, it accepts it for C++14.
EDG accepts it unconditionally.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81885
--- Comment #2 from Jörg Richter ---
Okay, I see your point. But I think calling operator->() to get the pointer is
not a very common use-case. Its more like get() is the right function for this
task.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81888
Bug ID: 81888
Summary: Structured bindings stopped working
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81884
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
Regresses gfortran.dg/reassoc_4.f because we no longer DSE
@@ -207,6 +207,7 @@
_28 = *weight_94(D);
_29 = _27 * _28;
_30 = _10 + _29;
+ *s_91(D)[_9] = _30;
_173 = _12 + 9;
_174 = _17 + _173;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81884
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #42000|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
EDG rejects it too:
"gr.cc", line 3: error: expected a declaration
new struct A {{ }};
^
"gr.cc", line 3: error: type definition is not allowed
new struct A {{ }};
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81885
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
In fact it's the idiomatic way to get a real pointer from any kind of smart
pointer, e.g. fancy pointers used by allocators (which don't necessarily have a
get member function).
There's even a proposal to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81877
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81877
>
> --- Comment #11 from Alexander Monakov ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81888
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81887
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
See also PR81877 for some discussion and an example where SLP vectorization can
break 'ordered'.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50456
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49224
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49224
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26748
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
Bug ID: 81889
Summary: [7 Regression] bogus warnings with
-Wmaybe-uninitialized -O3
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47256
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81889
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49531
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
Status|UNCONFI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51234
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51545
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81877
--- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov ---
> More rigorously defining the semantic of loop->safelen (the
> middle-end term) is necessary nevertheless. I believe omp ordered
> doesn't have any middle-end representation?
Except on nvptx, 'omp ord
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81890
Bug ID: 81890
Summary: asm memory constraints are difficult and not well
documented
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81890
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFIRME
#2 from Benjamin Buch ---
Bug does still exist in:
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 8.0.0 20170818 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81847
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
Created attachment 42004
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42004&action=edit
A bit smaller test-case
Smaller test-cast which needs to add --param lto-min-partition=1.
Problem is following,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81891
Bug ID: 81891
Summary: heap-use-after-free if inserting element in
std::unordered_map(InputIt, InputIt) throws
Product: gcc
Version: 7.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ---
I have sent this to Core for consideration.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81327
--- Comment #1 from Ville Voutilainen ---
Note that this currently blocks building Qt with gcc 8. We could work around it
by turning our void* casts to char* casts, but we have a preference for fixing
this problem in the compiler.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71003
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51789
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52130
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51789
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|WAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80528
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80689
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48829
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81673
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||80689
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81892
Bug ID: 81892
Summary: suboptimal code for a if (p) free(p) else free(p)
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81892
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52130
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|WAI
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81892
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52320
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52801
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic, error-recovery
S
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80763
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #7)
> Still seems to be broken, over a month later.
Still broken, a couple of months even later ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81893
Bug ID: 81893
Summary: [8 regression] compilation error in libgo starting
with r251127
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81419
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fdumont at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81891
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this might be all we need to do to fix it:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
@@ -973,17 +973,8 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81893
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
Did you test powerpc64 little endian?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81894
Bug ID: 81894
Summary: Typo in x86 built-in function list
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80567
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80684
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81895
Bug ID: 81895
Summary: gcc rejects out-of-line definition of enum member of
class template under -pedantic-errors
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52130
--- Comment #3 from Richard Smith ---
The diagnostic in #1 is not only wrong for this case, it's also a rejects-valid
in the case where the underlying types match. I've filed
https://gcc.gnu.org/PR81895 for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80529
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81794
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44283
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||error-recovery
Status|UNCONF
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50169
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81891
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri Aug 18 17:46:57 2017
New Revision: 251185
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251185&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/81891 fix double-free in hashtable constructor
PR l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81794
--- Comment #2 from David Malcolm ---
Please can you turn it into a patch that contains both the fix *and* the new
testcase? (e.g. gcc.dg/pragma-diag-8.c)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81891
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||8.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81827
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81514
--- Comment #4 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Fri Aug 18 18:12:47 2017
New Revision: 251186
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251186&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: fix ordering of missing std #include suggestion (PR c++/81514)
gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81514
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79072
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69834
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81893
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Yes, it compiles OK on LE.
Note that I saw the errors on both power7 and power8 BE systems and using
different versions of gcc to build.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81488
--- Comment #6 from Bill Schmidt ---
Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg01145.html
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
